😎 Does AI really understand brandable domains? (A pending delete drop catch story)

[Ricado]

A recent inquiry on one of my domains reminded me of a drop catch decision I made a few years ago.

When SonicMarx.com entered pending delete, I was watching it closely and manually registering alongside others, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, during that period, I asked both Gemini and ChatGPT for their opinions on the name.

Interestingly, both AI models gave almost identical feedback and advised against it.

Their reasoning was consistent:
“‘Marx’ carries strong ideological or political associations. This may introduce unnecessary risk and reduce the buyer pool. A more neutral name would be safer.”

From an AI perspective, brandable domains tend to be evaluated as a risk-avoidance problem.

This was not a backorder, and it wasn’t uncontested.
It was a typical pending delete situation, with multiple people watching and attempting to catch it.

What likely made the difference wasn’t speed or tooling, but how the name itself was interpreted.

From a domainer and brand-building perspective, I saw something different.

Based on my past experience with names like SonicMail and SkyMarx, my interpretation was:

• Sonic: speed, signal, impact
• Mar: a familiar shorthand for marketing and market thinking
• X: cross-over, experimentation, exponential growth

To me, SonicMarx was never about ideology.
It felt more like a name suggesting fast and disruptive market influence.

A few days ago, a non-tech startup reached out with an inquiry on this domain, which quietly validated that original decision to pursue it during the drop. What attracted them was the commercial energy of the name, not the political meaning AI had flagged.

This experience reinforced something I often see in pending delete decisions:

AI tools are helpful for highlighting obvious risks, but they tend to default to conservative pattern matching based on historical data.
Human buyers, however, often think in terms of future positioning, narrative, and differentiation.

Both AI and humans misjudge domains sometimes, but for very different reasons.

AI avoids risk.
Buyers sometimes invest in vision.

Just sharing this as a real pending delete example.
Curious how others here balance AI input with personal judgment when deciding whether to chase a name during a drop.

 

[Arko]

View attachment 12286​

A recent inquiry on one of my domains reminded me of a drop catch decision I made a few years ago.

When SonicMarx.com entered pending delete, I was watching it closely and manually registering alongside others, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, during that period, I asked both Gemini and ChatGPT for their opinions on the name.

Interestingly, both AI models gave almost identical feedback and advised against it.

Their reasoning was consistent:
“‘Marx’ carries strong ideological or political associations. This may introduce unnecessary risk and reduce the buyer pool. A more neutral name would be safer.”

From an AI perspective, brandable domains tend to be evaluated as a risk-avoidance problem.

This was not a backorder, and it wasn’t uncontested.
It was a typical pending delete situation, with multiple people watching and attempting to catch it.

What likely made the difference wasn’t speed or tooling, but how the name itself was interpreted.

From a domainer and brand-building perspective, I saw something different.

Based on my past experience with names like SonicMail and SkyMarx, my interpretation was:

• Sonic: speed, signal, impact
• Mar: a familiar shorthand for marketing and market thinking
• X: cross-over, experimentation, exponential growth

To me, SonicMarx was never about ideology.
It felt more like a name suggesting fast and disruptive market influence.

A few days ago, a non-tech startup reached out with an inquiry on this domain, which quietly validated that original decision to pursue it during the drop. What attracted them was the commercial energy of the name, not the political meaning AI had flagged.

This experience reinforced something I often see in pending delete decisions:

AI tools are helpful for highlighting obvious risks, but they tend to default to conservative pattern matching based on historical data.
Human buyers, however, often think in terms of future positioning, narrative, and differentiation.

Both AI and humans misjudge domains sometimes, but for very different reasons.

AI avoids risk.
Buyers sometimes invest in vision.

Just sharing this as a real pending delete example.
Curious how others here balance AI input with personal judgment when deciding whether to chase a name during a drop.

Excellent analysis, Ricado. Your 'SonicMarx' example perfectly captures the friction between algorithmic risk-avoidance and human brand-building vision.
It’s a great reminder that while AI tools are invaluable for identifying data-driven patterns, they often miss the 'emotional energy' and future-positioning that a startup founder looks for. Just as Gemini and ChatGPT flagged 'Marx' for political risk, an automated appraisal might flag 'Vylmo' for linguistic non-conformity—yet both overlook the visual symmetry and the high-tech, rhythmic feel that makes a brand memorable.
**As you rightly said, AI avoids risk, but buyers invest in vision. I’m positioning Vylmo for that specific buyer who sees beyond the CVCVC structure and recognizes a modern, disruptive identity.
Thanks for sharing this insight; it’s a masterclass in why the 'human element' remains the ultimate decider in this industry.

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Appreciate the perspective.
I agree that algorithms often miss visual rhythm and brand feel.

As for CVCVC, there’s a generally accepted standard, so I wouldn’t personally put Vylmo in that category, despite its visual balance.

 

[Arko]

Well said, Ricado. Visual rhythm often speaks louder than linguistic labels to the right founder. I've officially lowered the BIN to $4,900 with a 10-month payment plan to match that 'market reality' we discussed. Cheers for the feedback!

@Arko
Appreciate the perspective.
I agree that algorithms often miss visual rhythm and brand feel.

As for CVCVC, there’s a generally accepted standard, so I wouldn’t personally put Vylmo in that category, despite its visual balance.

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Instead of spending too much time trying to explain or justify a single domain, it’s often more productive to spend that time looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

If you’re genuinely interested in CVCVC domains, I need to be very clear about one thing.

Every day, thousands of 5-letter .com domains drop, and many of them do fit the CVCVC structure. But not every CVCVC has value, and structure alone does not make a brandable domain investable.

A brand is not just about visual design. It also needs to be spoken, remembered, and passed along.

With 4L domains, even if they’re not pronounceable, spelling them out letter by letter can still work.
Once you move to 5 letters or more, if a name cannot be pronounced naturally, its practical value drops significantly.

If you’re interested in 5L domains, here are a few examples I randomly picked from today’s pending delete list that technically qualify as CVCVC:

• DEVIP
• FIBAZ
• HASOF
• JAHOZ
• RONUB
• SUBOF
• TIGUX
• VOBAD
• VIXOC

Do all of these have investment value?
That’s the real question the market answers, not the structure.

One more practical note.

Among these examples, DEVIP is the only one I would personally recommend.

It works as a single brand and can be read in multiple ways: De-Vip, De-V-I-P, or Dev-I-P, depending on how it’s positioned. That flexibility matters when you’re actually introducing a name to an end user.

DEVIP is registered in 15 TLDs and is an aged domain (15.20 years). With a bit of luck, it can be caught for under $100. Even with competition, it’s usually only a few hundred dollars.

That’s what I’d call investor-grade value.

Everyone has their own values and investment strategies.
DEVIP is a name I would actively pursue.
If Vylmo were to drop, it wouldn’t meet my minimum threshold even at registration cost.

 

[Arko]

I hear you, Ricado. I appreciate the deep dive into the 'investor-grade' criteria. It’s clear we have different strategies: you're looking for established metrics and liquid structures, while I'm betting more on the branding 'vibe' for specific tech niches.
Different paths for different outcomes. Thanks for the masterclass on CVCVC liquidity

@Arko
Instead of spending too much time trying to explain or justify a single domain, it’s often more productive to spend that time looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

If you’re genuinely interested in CVCVC domains, I need to be very clear about one thing.

Every day, thousands of 5-letter .com domains drop, and many of them do fit the CVCVC structure. But not every CVCVC has value, and structure alone does not make a brandable domain investable.

A brand is not just about visual design. It also needs to be spoken, remembered, and passed along.

With 4L domains, even if they’re not pronounceable, spelling them out letter by letter can still work.
Once you move to 5 letters or more, if a name cannot be pronounced naturally, its practical value drops significantly.

If you’re interested in 5L domains, here are a few examples I randomly picked from today’s pending delete list that technically qualify as CVCVC:

• DEVIP
• FIBAZ
• HASOF
• JAHOZ
• RONUB
• SUBOF
• TIGUX
• VOBAD
• VIXOC

Do all of these have investment value?
That’s the real question the market answers, not the structure.

One more practical note.

Among these examples, DEVIP is the only one I would personally recommend.

It works as a single brand and can be read in multiple ways: De-Vip, De-V-I-P, or Dev-I-P, depending on how it’s positioned. That flexibility matters when you’re actually introducing a name to an end user.

DEVIP is registered in 15 TLDs and is an aged domain (15.20 years). With a bit of luck, it can be caught for under $100. Even with competition, it’s usually only a few hundred dollars.

That’s what I’d call investor-grade value.

Everyone has their own values and investment strategies.
DEVIP is a name I would actively pursue.
If Vylmo were to drop, it wouldn’t meet my minimum threshold even at registration cost.

!

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Fair enough.
Different strategies, different risk profiles.
Appreciate the discussion.